memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Vigilant class (scout)
"This scout variation would be out of service by 2386, when a new and different Vigilant-class entered service. (ST website: The Path to 2409)" - I don’t think we should be assuming things like this (and similar cases where ships have the same name), we don’t have that as a given fact if it is the case in the same continuity, and if they occur in a different continuity it's irrelevant. By all means give it as a background note, but I don’t think we should be putting assumptions in as a definitive piece of in-universe information. --8of5 14:53, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :I don't think we have cause to believe different continuities exist until one catches up to the other. The timeline of publications hasn't quite caught up to the future bits of STO, but we can comment from within a shared POV. By citing the last bit to STO, we can demonstrate through the citation that that is the STO viewpoint, and not necessarily the viewpoint of the (stopped) LUG continuity.. this is looking in the other direction, looking back from STO -- basically, no one has said that LUG doesn't exist in STO's past, so do we have cause to believe it didn't? -- Captain MKB 15:22, November 28, 2009 (UTC) Indeed, and I'm not suggesting that's even an issue in this particular instance, merely a consideration in making this kind of assumption generally. My major issue is that we assume the earlier ship must have stopped being about when the later ship is introduced simply because they share a name (which if they did exist in a different continuity makes it doubly irrelevant). I don’t think it's right for us to make that assumption. --8of5 15:27, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :Creating such a note about the transfer of the name could be cited to STO to make sure it's a separate issue from the LUG article, and then a short background note about how the STO timeline is generally consistent with LUG sources, and is one of a number of possible futures for the ST universe. -- Captain MKB 15:30, November 28, 2009 (UTC) Ok, forget I mentioned continuities for a second, that's a wider issue. What I'm getting at is: who are we to declare that the Vigilant class scout must have dropped out of service when the Vigilant class tactical escort came into service? While it might be a little odd in terms of getting names confused in-universe, there's nothing to say both can’t be in service at the same time. Therefore we shouldn’t be saying that, or if we are saying that, it should only be as a background note - In much the same way that this article currently suggests there was probably a prototype USS Vigilant, but we don’t have evidence for that, so we don’t say it as a definitive fact. --8of5 15:35, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :I see your point now. Maybe one entering service doesn't necessarily mean the other class was out of service. Possibly making this a background note would make sense. :I generally try to address this in individual ships by saying "succeeded in its name" instead of stating "it was taken out of service and replaced" -- the first text does not draw such broad conclusions. :It would be like our large number of starship articles that draw the conclusion that all 23rd century starships are "decommissioned" because they weren't seen to be around in the 24th century. Which is why i prefer to note they were "active (23rd century)" and avoid drawing the conclusion that they were definitively decommissioned. -- Captain MKB 15:43, November 28, 2009 (UTC) Indeed, I think any issue of naming succession, when we don’t have a solid fact (like the Enterprises for instance) should only be given as background. We may have evidence a ship or class of the same name exists later, but that doesn't mean the other has to not exist by then. And I was unaware of your latter example. I too would note them as active and then give a date. I'm a little troubled at the suggestion we have a lot of articles making assumptions about when a ship must have been taken out of service if we have no evidence for it. --8of5 15:51, November 28, 2009 (UTC) :I think the bulk of the articles I'm referring to originate from the Star Fleet Technical Manual and possibly some from FASA Ship Recognition Manual -- created around 2006 here on the wiki. I've reformatted many over the years, but there are hundreds that were all generated from copy-paste of article data making that statement. -- Captain MKB 15:54, November 28, 2009 (UTC)